-4

A lot of times as I read through questions, I see that someone else has edited it.

This being a pseudo-wiki, maybe the system should "force" a user to comment on why said question was edited?

I don't like the idea of forcing, but I also would like to see why the main part of the question was edited.

Improve this question
3
  • 1
    But if you keep boiling it, you ruin all the taste.
    – random
    Dec 24, 2009 at 7:36
  • 2
    no. this is a bad idea - besides, the edit history contains all, well, historical entries of edits
    – warren
    Dec 24, 2009 at 13:35
  • What benefit would this have given that edits need to have a description, which gets displayed in the (public) revision list?
    – starball
    Nov 4, 2022 at 3:07

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
20

Asdfasdfasdfasdf.

Is that ok? Forcing people to write an explanation for their action usually backfires. The system, as it is now, is more than ok. If it really needs explaining, a lot of people will voluntarily fill in the edit summary field.

Improve this answer
2
  • 7
    I usually fill in the edit summary if I'm editing other people's posts, but sometimes not if it's really obvious (like correcting a typo).
    – Greg Hewgill
    Dec 24, 2009 at 10:30
  • 3
    Usually I enter a typo when filling in the edit summary, only to notice it as I click the submit button. :-(
    – tvanfosson
    Dec 24, 2009 at 15:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .